ID/Evolution "New Paper in Bio-Complexity Reveals a Remarkable Coincidence"

[dakensta]

ummm, what do woodworms eat?
potato?

[A-GAME]

who keeps repping semitope? expose yourself!

I do because I constantly make fun of his stupidity. It makes me sleep better at night.

[lasher]

who keeps repping semitope? expose yourself!

That was me, just a few minutes ago. Right after I clicked the add to reputation button I made a sad face because I thought it would have been funny to type the comment "LOL U MAD Lucious?" take a screenshot and then upload it to tinypic and post it as a reply ITT.

But in my haste I clicked the button too quickly

[A-GAME]

who keeps repping semitope? expose yourself!

That was me, just a few minutes ago. Right after I clicked the add to reputation button I made a sad face because I thought it would have been funny to type the comment "LOL U MAD Lucious?" take a screenshot and then upload it to tinypic and post it as a reply ITT.

But in my haste I clicked the button too quickly

[lasher]

[GregariousWolf]

...and you can't be trusted to read. The article covers degradation by fungi and bacteria.

will be back to correct any mistakes

Are you daft?

The Discovery Institute blog entry you posted said nothing eats lignin.

The abstract of the Discovery Institute "journal" Bio-complexity says the same thing:

Considering its massive abundance and its high energy content (40% higher than cellulose, gram for gram), it is striking that no organism seems to have tapped it as an energy source. After posing this as an evolutionary enigma, we prepare to address it by reviewing what is known about the structure, biosynthesis and biodegradation of wood in general and of lignin in particular. Then, returning to the enigma, we ask whether it is more readily explained within a Darwinian framework or a design framework. The Darwinian account must somehow reconcile 400 million years of failure to evolve a relatively modest innovation—growth on lignin—with a long list of spectacular innovations thought to have evolved in a fraction of that time.

On edit, the whole article is daft. Says nothing eats lignin then talks about biodegrading lignin, as if something that is biodegradable is not being eaten by microorganisms.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

semitope, I'm going to ignore your OP: its butthole has been ravaged enough by others ITT. I'm not sure it can feel anything anymore. There would be no joy in it.

But allow me to ask you a question: where, exactly, in the Bible does it say that evolution and your personal religion are incompatible? Because obviously the Bible is the source of your religion, and if the existence of evolution directly implies that your personal religious views are wrong, then there must be something in the Bible that directly states as much. So where is it? Where does Jesus say, 'Verily I say unto ye, that Darwinianinianinianists hate me, and verily want to have teh buttsekz with each others, and make fairy prons all the live long day, and I only like amputee prons'? I mean seriously, that would explain why God does not heal amputees.

Evolution and your personal religious views are not incompatible. It is obvious that it is time to find a new boogeyman. Might I suggest mushrooms?

[A-GAME]

[semitope]

so why didn't god create animals that could digest lignin?

Lignin is important for the preservation of the ecosystem.

Okay, then what's the scientific theory?

If there is no theory then it cannot 'explain' things and their predictions cannot come true.

As to asking for predictions, where did I do this? There can't be any scientific predictions of ID, since it isn't a scientific theory!

Notice you didn't post a scientific theory of ID?

I did and I think everyone else did too.



Are you saying that I could have said it 400 million years ago, prior to the fact?

In any event, how do you determine that it is 'as easy as anything else to metabolize'? Further, since there are other food sources available, where is the necessity?

evolutionary theory maintains that the appearance of design in nature is due to natural selection and random mutations acting upon a common ancestor. ID proposes that this design is really due to intelligence. Both therefore lead to certain predictions.

ID predicts that we will find such examples in nature where the design of an organsim isn't simply to survive and reproduce as best as possible, but also wwill take into consideration the organisms ecosystem in order that it's features do not result in damage to that ecosystem. ID also predicts "convergent evolution", the numerous problems with the tree of life, that DNA would be mostly functional etc. ID is as much a theory as evolution, unless you need some technicality to exclude it in order to save your worldview.

Various concepts developed are in keeping with the basic concept of the theory.

Like I said, cellulose is not the first thing an organism would have to deal with to feed. Lignin is actually somewhat a barrier to the metabolism of cellulose. I.e. cellulose was actually a less readily available food source. Lignin also provides more energy than cellulose. An obvious candidate for food.

Are you daft?

The Discovery Institute blog entry you posted said nothing eats lignin.

The abstract of the Discovery Institute "journal" Bio-complexity says the same thing:



On edit, the whole article is daft. Says nothing eats lignin then talks about biodegrading lignin, as if something that is biodegradable is not being eaten by microorganisms.

oh look, he finally read more than the title of the article. The use of lignin by fungi was said to be secondary and it consumed glucose IIRC. This is what they said about lignin metabolism by fungi. Notice its "energy source". the article never uses the word "eat". You are still seeing through your bias shades.

The degradation of lignin by white-rot fungi has some special and even strange features. Firstly, lignin is not degraded during fungal growth but only after nutrient depletion triggers secondary metabolism. This is strange since secondary metabolism is usually connected to biosynthetic reactions rather than degradative processes. Secondly, despite the fact that complete oxidation of lignin is highly exothermic, fungal degradation of lignin actually needs an energy source. It has been postulated that lignin degradation is too slow to serve as a source of metabolic energy [...] Under optimal aerobic culture conditions, one gram of fungal mycelia degrades one gram of lignin in about 48 hours, consuming one gram of glucose in the process (as an energy source). Once glucose is depleted, lignin degradation ceases completely.

TH3SHR3DD3R I am going to ignore your post. Your butthole has been ravaged by the atheists in this thread and I'd rather stay as far away as possible from what you guys have going on.

[GregariousWolf]

Notice its "energy source". the article never uses the word "eat". You are still seeing through your bias shades.

LOL

A simple web search is sufficient to produce many links about microorganisms that metabolize lignin.

[semitope]

LOL

A simple web search is sufficient to produce many links about microorganisms that metabolize lignin.

interesting. Care to share some of those results?

[GregariousWolf]

interesting. Care to share some of those results?

Not for you, no. I leave it as an exercise for the reader.

[Meatros]

Lignin is important for the preservation of the ecosystem.

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer PLZGO's question, maybe you misread it, it was:

so why didn't god create animals that could digest lignin?

evolutionary theory maintains that the appearance of design in nature is due to natural selection and random mutations acting upon a common ancestor. ID proposes that this design is really due to intelligence. Both therefore lead to certain predictions.

Nonsense, first, 'evolutionary theory' is actually comprised of many different theories. One of which is natural selection. Natural selection would basically state that the more 'fit' an organism is for their environment (reproductively fit) the better chance it would have to survive and pass on it's genes. This provides one avenue to explain speciation.

What is the 'theory' of intelligent design? How does intelligent design explain the variation of the species? If you cannot answer these questions, then you do not have a theory of intelligent design.

I notice that you probably realize this since you shifted from my question (which asked what the theory of ID was) to what ID 'proposes'. Your attempt to answer a strawman is noted. Please answer the actual question. What is the theory of intelligent design?

ID predicts that we will find such examples in nature where the design of an organsim isn't simply to survive and reproduce as best as possible, but also wwill take into consideration the organisms ecosystem in order that it's features do not result in damage to that ecosystem. ID also predicts "convergent evolution", the numerous problems with the tree of life, that DNA would be mostly functional etc. ID is as much a theory as evolution, unless you need some technicality to exclude it in order to save your worldview.

All nonsense - without a theory, you cannot honestly say that ID predicts anything. So you are putting the cart before the horse. Please provide a theory of intelligent design before pretending to answer what such a theory would predict.

Various concepts developed are in keeping with the basic concept of the theory.

You have provided no theory of intelligent design. Please do so, otherwise it's not on the scientific table - it's on the 'wizards did it' table of 'explanation'.

[Meatros]

interesting. Care to share some of those results?

Take off your intelligentdesign google filter and I think you'll be able to see some.

[lucious]

intelligent design is not falsifiable, therefore not a theory

[psiconoclast]

There is a species that evolved to use lignin as an energy source (and not simply expend energy to break it down): Humans!

Of course, we call it fire, not lingin digestion, but the fact of the way we harvest it gives some really interesting insight into why organisms probably don't metabolize it: It takes a really violent (IE fire) reaction to extract the energy in any sort of reasonable timeframe, metabolically speaking. The ability to withstand such violent conditions (at least partially) would be a precursor to being able to evolve the ability to metabolize lignin effectively.

[lasher]

Take off your intelligentdesign google filter and I think you'll be able to see some.

ok, that was pretty funny.

[lucious]

mods, if you have any decency at all , youll warn semitope for his trolling.















pretty sure flamebaiting is an offense.

[BobisMighty]

[Dude.Jon]

The entire conclusion of the whole paper:

intelligent design "routinely takes the broad view and the long-term view, and because of this it alone makes sense of life."

Simplified: We think ID makes sense, therefore it makes sense. Evolution make no sense to me, therefore, Jesus.

[dakensta]

imagine if there was some organism that can eat rock. churches would get eaten.
but nothing eats churches, ergo God exists.
QED.

[psiconoclast]

imagine if there was some organism that can eat rock. churches would get eaten.
but nothing eats churches, ergo God exists.
QED.

I'll see that and raise you this:

What if there was an organism that could eat the Intelligent Designer? The Intelligent Designer would get eaten! No evidence of the Intelligent Designer being eaten, ergo the Intelligent Designer exists.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

I'll see that and raise you this:

What if there was an organism that could eat the Intelligent Designer? The Intelligent Designer would get eaten! No evidence of the Intelligent Designer being eaten, ergo the Intelligent Designer exists.

[semitope]

I'm sorry, but you didn't answer PLZGO's question, maybe you misread it, it was:

so why didn't god create animals that could digest lignin?

I answered the question. Digesting lignin significantly would negatively impact the ecosystem. You being a darwinist cannot understand answers that rely on intelligence. You are the kind of person who would make cars with square "wheels"

Nonsense, first, 'evolutionary theory' is actually comprised of many different theories. One of which is natural selection. Natural selection would basically state that the more 'fit' an organism is for their environment (reproductively fit) the better chance it would have to survive and pass on it's genes. This provides one avenue to explain speciation.

evo theory is comprised of many difference ideas. All around the same concept. Of course there are similar ideas in ID such as irreducible complexity, specified complexity, the work they are doing on information etc. But the core is that design is due to intelligence and based on that core we can predict certain things and it serves to explain certain observations.

What is the 'theory' of intelligent design? How does intelligent design explain the variation of the species? If you cannot answer these questions, then you do not have a theory of intelligent design.

microevolution

I notice that you probably realize this since you shifted from my question (which asked what the theory of ID was) to what ID 'proposes'. Your attempt to answer a strawman is noted. Please answer the actual question. What is the theory of intelligent design?

should i use "supposes" or "says"? Or are you going to be happy only with "is"? I cannot give all the details of what the people working within the theory of ID in terms of ideas, but each theory works around a core with concepts generated from that and confirmed by predictions etc.

when it comes to evolution, you need it and bend over for it.

All nonsense - without a theory, you cannot honestly say that ID predicts anything. So you are putting the cart before the horse. Please provide a theory of intelligent design before pretending to answer what such a theory would predict.

Keep deceiving yourself.

You have provided no theory of intelligent design. Please do so, otherwise it's not on the scientific table - it's on the 'wizards did it' table of 'explanation'.

more QQ. Cry me a river.

Take off your intelligentdesign google filter and I think you'll be able to see some.

See, you guys just keep saying things like this but never seem to be able to back it up. The guy could easily show where he is right with ONE link. ONE source. ONE SOMETHING. Yet always these guys come and just say something and, funny enough, a lot of you believe they are right. You need no source, nothing to back them up as long as what they say fits what you believe.

I did google about metabolism of lignin. I saw nothing outside of what the article said. I ask both to see if I/they are wrong, and because i think he's bluffing.

[semitope]

mods, if you have any decency at all , youll warn semitope for his trolling.

pretty sure flamebaiting is an offense.

it's getting to you, huh? For years you grilled and teased Christians for their faith. Then yours gets challenged and its "mods HELLPP!!!"

[ImproperOne]

it's getting to you, huh? For years you grilled and teased Christians for their faith. Then yours gets challenged and its "mods HELLPP!!!"

I don't think you understand why he's saying you are trolling and flamebaiting, he's actually being a lot kinder than i am by believing that you are not honest in your stupidity.

I think you are actually so stupid that you think that "this is what i believe evolution should show if it were true" matters what so ever.

You don't seem to understand anything about evolution, you seem to think a species (or kind as you always put it since inter-species evolution has been observed in a laboratory and the Bible uses the word "kind" which is why ID proponents (creationists) like it so very much) just "changes" all of a sudden. It doesn't, it takes an awful long time and many species will die off in the process IF the evolutionary path that you envision takes place AT ALL, it usually doesn't and there is usually a very good reason for it. If you had been willing to listen you'd know the reason by now since it's been presented throughout this thread but you'll just ignore it like the good little idiot you are.

Meatros is completely correct too, all ID is is an attempt to falsify evolution, it is in no way a scientific theory and there IS NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF IT. Even if you managed to completely falsify the ToE (which will never happen, the theory will continue to change with available evidence) it still wouldn't do squat regarding ID, there still wouldn't be a single shred of evidence for ID.

[Dude.Jon]

What if God designed a universe to appear undesigned?


























ID 'theory' just shattered into peices and intelligently reconfigured itself, into another unprovable 'theory'.

[semitope]

I don't think you understand why he's saying you are trolling and flamebaiting, he's actually being a lot kinder than i am by believing that you are not honest in your stupidity.

I think you are actually so stupid that you think that "this is what i believe evolution should show if it were true" matters what so ever.

You don't seem to understand anything about evolution, you seem to think a species (or kind as you always put it since inter-species evolution has been observed in a laboratory and the Bible uses the word "kind" which is why ID proponents (creationists) like it so very much) just "changes" all of a sudden. It doesn't, it takes an awful long time and many species will die off in the process IF the evolutionary path that you envision takes place AT ALL, it usually doesn't and there is usually a very good reason for it. If you had been willing to listen you'd know the reason by now since it's been presented throughout this thread but you'll just ignore it like the good little idiot you are.

A reason was proposed and I responded to that treason. Since then I have seen no reply to my reply. Though i gather that is how you guys work. Say some crap and its instantly gospel, regardless of what anyone else says. Instead you claim you are right and claim the other person is ignoring your reason. Honestly, I don't even think your post is meant for me. It's most likely meant for the caricature of me that you've subconsciously constructed in order to prevent reality from being unbearable.

I don't think evolution proposes rapid change. I have in fact used the gradual nature of the supposed process as an argument against it, based on what we see in nature. A gradual step by step process has limitations and when confronted with glaring falsifications such as the cambrian explosion, evolutionists have no issues claiming more rapid change. Even Meatros is willing to conceive of evolution taking place with a younger earth.

I expect some candy for this post. I initially was going to be as abrasive as this individual, but I am changing my ways.

Meatros is completely correct too, all ID is is an attempt to falsify evolution, it is in no way a scientific theory and there IS NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE IN FAVOR OF IT. Even if you managed to completely falsify the ToE (which will never happen, the theory will continue to change with available evidence) it still wouldn't do squat regarding ID, there still wouldn't be a single shred of evidence for ID.

well yes, meatros is correct. He opposes ID. He must be correct...

It's impossible to falsify evolution if people are willing to manipulate the theory to fit any evidence. Like I have said, in the minds of so many of you, the fact is evolution and the theory just aims to say how it happened. There is no falsifying something you assume must have happened. You probably don't even realize that this confession on the part of many of you shows that your atheism drives your belief in the theory of evolution.

[ImproperOne]

A reason was proposed and I responded to that treason. Since then I have seen no reply to my reply. Though i gather that is how you guys work. Say some crap and its instantly gospel, regardless of what anyone else says. Instead you claim you are right and claim the other person is ignoring your reason. Honestly, I don't even think your post is meant for me. It's most likely meant for the caricature of me that you've subconsciously constructed in order to prevent reality from being unbearable.

I don't think evolution proposes rapid change. I have in fact used the gradual nature of the supposed process as an argument against it, based on what we see in nature. A gradual step by step process has limitations and when confronted with glaring falsifications such as the cambrian explosion, evolutionists have no issues claiming more rapid change. Even Meatros is willing to conceive of evolution taking place with a younger earth.

I expect some candy for this post. I initially was going to be as abrasive as this individual, but I am changing my ways.

I don't know what to say about this except that you clearly have a problem with your own understanding of evolution, until that is sorted out any type of discussion on the matter is impossible. Do you understand how if you remove a large portion of a species so that only the part of the species with certain characteristics survives it actually changes the entire species in a very short time? Do you understand WHY? Of course not but you're so extremely arrogant that you don't bother yourself with the actual evidenced facts you are denying.

Younger earth... holy crap, you're a YEC'er... You poor poor thing, what have they done to you?

well yes, meatros is correct. He opposes ID. He must be correct...

It's impossible to falsify evolution if people are willing to manipulate the theory to fit any evidence. Like I have said, in the minds of so many of you, the fact is evolution and the theory just aims to say how it happened. There is no falsifying something you assume must have happened. You probably don't even realize that this confession on the part of many of you shows that your atheism drives your belief in the theory of evolution.

Well, yes, it's impossible to falsify evolution as it's so encompassing, you'd have to falsify all of biological science and find another mechanism to replace evolution as observed.

You don't understand how a scientific theory works at all, it seems. If a part of a theory is falsified then that part is falsified, new data is incorporated into the theory and this is how the ToE became as robust as it is today. You see, while ID'ers are claming the truth and trying to shoehorn facts that don't fit into it (it's designed even though there is no evidence what so ever for it) scientists are looking for the truth and as it's found out it is used accordingly, either to falsify previous data and introduce new data or to confirm previous data, either way the data is used rather than discarded if it doesn't fit.

Naturally it takes peer review to really accomplish anything, one guy claiming something that cannot be repeated is best left to the IDiots who will then claim that peer review is bad science.

[Stizzel]

it's getting to you, huh? For years you grilled and teased Christians for their faith. Then yours gets challenged and its "mods HELLPP!!!"

No one feels challenged by you unless you beat you wife/effeminate male partner.

Personally I find your self contradictory lines of reasoning entertaining, especially when people take the bait and respond with walls of text that you obviously don't read.